Virginia votes Tuesday on abortion and same-sex marriage amendments

Virginia voters will decide three constitutional amendments on Tuesday, Nov. 3. Two of them sit at the center of the country's fight over gender and family law. Question 1 would write a right to "reproductive freedom" into the state's Bill of Rights. Question 2 would remove the state's ban on same-sex marriage and replace it with a right to marry. Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern time, according to Ballotpedia's page on Question 2.

A third question, on restoring voting rights to people who have finished prison sentences, is also on the ballot. This story covers the first two. Both were sent to voters by the General Assembly.

The campaigns disagree about what each amendment does. They also disagree about what it leaves out. That makes the exact wording, which the Virginia Department of Elections has published, the best place to begin.

What the two questions say

The ballot wording for Question 1 asks whether the constitution should be amended to "protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care." It also asks about protecting "doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions" and about allowing "restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient's health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive." The full text is on the Department of Elections page for Question 1.

The amendment would add a new Section 11-A. It says every individual has "the fundamental right to reproductive freedom." Any denial, burden or infringement of that right would have to be "justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means." In law, that is known as strict scrutiny, the most demanding test courts use. The text lets the state regulate third-trimester abortion, with exceptions for the patient's life or health and for pregnancies that cannot survive. It also bars penalties against anyone who helps another person use the right.

Question 2 asks whether the constitution should be amended to "remove the ban on same-sex marriage," affirm that two adults may marry "regardless of sex, gender, or race," and require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally. According to the Department of Elections page for Question 2, the current provision, Section 15-A, says only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage in the state. The department adds that the ban is "no longer enforceable" because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. It would become enforceable again if that decision were overturned.

The replacement text would make marriage "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." It would also bar the state from denying a marriage license to two adults because of their sex, gender or race.

How the amendments reached the ballot

Virginia amends its constitution in three steps. The legislature passes an amendment in one session, passes it again after the next House election, and then sends it to voters. The marriage amendment followed that path in 2025 and 2026.

Ballotpedia records the votes. In 2025, the Senate approved the first version, Senate Joint Resolution 249, by 24 to 15, and the House approved it 58 to 34. A House version passed 58 to 35 in the House and 24 to 15 in the Senate. After Democrats gained 13 House seats in the November 2025 election, the 2026 resolution, House Joint Resolution 3, passed the House 67 to 31. Three Republicans voted yes. The Senate approved it 26 to 13, with five Republicans voting yes.

The existing ban is also the product of a public vote. In 2006, Virginia voters approved the original amendment, known as the Marshall-Newman Amendment, with 57.1 percent voting yes. Federal courts struck down the ban in 2014, and the Supreme Court settled the national question in 2015. In March 2024, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed House Bill 174. That law bars the state from refusing a marriage license or refusing to recognize a marriage because of the spouses' sex, gender or race. It also says religious organizations and clergy may refuse to perform any marriage. So same-sex marriage is legal in Virginia today under both federal and state law. Question 2 would add a constitutional layer.

The case for Question 2

Supporters say the ban's continued presence is a risk. Virginians for Marriage Equality, the committee leading the Yes campaign, says on its website that the Marshall-Newman Amendment "is still there, just waiting for federal law to change," according to Ballotpedia. It points to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs to overturn longstanding precedent. If the same thing happened with Obergefell, the committee says, couples would lose protections such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, campaigned for the amendment on Oct. 31. The Washington Blade reported her remarks. She said she was a newlywed in 2006 when the ban passed. "Families across our Commonwealth deserve more," she said. "They deserve to have the shadow of Virginia's ban on marriage equality finally removed from Virginia's Constitution." Jonathan Lovitz, a senior vice president at the Human Rights Campaign, told the Blade that a Yes vote means "replacing Virginia's outdated constitutional ban with an affirmation that our families deserve dignity and equality." The Blade's report also names Equality Virginia as a campaign partner.

Other states offer a base rate for how such measures fare. Ballotpedia lists four repeal measures since 2020. Each passed.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Nevada Question 2 (2020)62.43%

California Prop. 3 (2024)62.62%

Colorado Amendment J (2024)64.33%

Hawaii (2024)55.94%

Nevada Question 2 (2020)California Prop. 3 (2024)Colorado Amendment J (2024)Hawaii (2024)

Source: Ballotpedia, Virginia Question 2 (2026)

Show the numbers

Measure	Yes vote
Nevada Question 2 (2020)	62.43%
California Prop. 3 (2024)	62.62%
Colorado Amendment J (2024)	64.33%
Hawaii (2024)	55.94%

The chart does not predict Virginia's result. Each state had a different electorate and different ballot wording. Ballotpedia's page for Question 2 reports no polling on the amendment itself, and this article found none from an independent pollster.

The case against Question 2

Opponents make two arguments. The first is about marriage itself. The Virginia Catholic Conference, which supported the 2006 amendment, urges a No vote on Question 2. It calls the proposal an "Amendment Rejecting the Truth about Marriage" on its voter-guide page. Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington said in a diocesan video, as the Blade reported, that the amendment "would remove from our state Constitution the truth, as Jesus taught, that marriage is between one man and one woman."

The second argument is about the word "gender." The Family Foundation of Virginia says on its Question 2 page that the amendment's "sex" and "gender" distinction "embeds gender ideology in the constitution." The group says this would pressure schools, businesses and government and could affect women's sports, locker rooms and shelters. It also says the amendment has no conscience or religious exemption for clergy or others with moral objections.

Victoria Cobb, the foundation's president, said, as Ballotpedia quotes her, that "by separating the terms sex and gender in this constitution, they are implying that one can be a different gender than their sex." Former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, a Republican, raised the same point to VPM News. "Why include gender?" she asked. She worried that the term could extend legal protections to transgender people in areas such as sports and restrooms.

The same VPM report quotes Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. She said the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, shows the Court treating gender as separate from sex in cases about transgender people. She was skeptical that the word "gender" would apply beyond the narrow context of marriage. She said both terms must be named if lawmakers want transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to have the amendment's protection. VPM's full report is the best single account of this dispute. The disagreement is partly legal and partly about values. Lawyers can read the text, but how a court would apply "gender" in a future case is a prediction, not a fact.

The foundation's site also says the amendment "reduces marriage to a source of personal happiness." It argues the new text drops language about the benefits and obligations that matter to children and families. Supporters respond that the replacement text keeps the state's duty to recognize any lawful marriage and treat it equally. The reader can compare the old and new wording in the Department of Elections text above.

Question 1: the polls and the money

Question 1 has drawn more public polling than Question 2, though the data are older than the campaign's final stretch. Ballotpedia lists three polls. Two come from the Wason Center for Public Policy and one from Virginia Commonwealth University.

• Support
• Oppose

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

VCU, Dec. 2024 to Jan. 2025Support: 62%Oppose: 30%

Wason, Jan. 6-13, 2025Support: 61%Oppose: 32%

Wason, Jan. 13-20, 2026Support: 66%Oppose: 28%

VCU, Dec. 2024 to Jan. 2025Wason, Jan. 6-13, 2025Wason, Jan. 13-20, 2026

Source: Ballotpedia, Virginia Question 1 (2026)

Show the numbers

Poll	Support	Oppose
VCU, Dec. 2024 to Jan. 2025	62%	30%
Wason, Jan. 6-13, 2025	61%	32%
Wason, Jan. 13-20, 2026	66%	28%

The margins of error are 3.6 points for the first Wason poll, 4.73 for VCU and 4.4 for the latest Wason poll. Two cautions apply. These surveys were taken ten months or more before Election Day, and I did not review each poll's original question wording. The final ballot question is long and lists specific procedures. Support for a general idea of reproductive freedom can differ from support for a specific amendment. Polls also do not capture who will turn out.

Campaign finance reports through Oct. 24, 2026, show the Yes side ahead in money. Ballotpedia's Question 1 page reports the totals below for committees on Question 1.

The largest reported donors in support were Planned Parenthood Action Fund, at $527,278, and the ACLU Foundation, at $430,672. On the opposing side, the Virginia Catholic Conference gave $375,000, the Family Foundation $273,694 and the Knights of Columbus $100,000. Money does not decide votes, and reports filed after Oct. 24 are not included.

The Yes campaign's own FAQ, from Virginians for Reproductive Freedom, says today's abortion protections are "ordinary statutes, not constitutional rights." It says a simple majority of the General Assembly plus a governor's signature could restrict or repeal them. It also says the amendment's text allows regulation of the third trimester. Read the campaign's FAQ for its full case.

The No campaign is backed by the Catholic Bishops of Richmond and Arlington. Its site says the amendment is "intentionally vague in its wording." It argues that the phrase "any individual" could remove licensing requirements, and it says the amendment would allow abortion "at any time during pregnancy." It also says the amendment "circumvents a parent's right" to make health decisions for children. Its site is Protect Virginia 2026.

These claims turn on legal interpretation. The amendment's text does not mention parental consent. The Yes campaign says Question 1 "does not address parental consent, which Virginia law sets separately." The two sides read that silence differently. The text does say the state may restrict third-trimester abortion, with exceptions for the patient's health and for pregnancies that cannot survive. Opponents say those exceptions are broad. Supporters say they match current medical practice. A court would settle the question only if a case arose.

Courts and what happens after the vote

The vote may not be the last step. The Family Foundation posted a Nov. 2 item headlined "It's Official: We Will Be in Court the Week after the Election." The page opened for this article showed only the headline, so this article cannot say what claims the group plans to bring. Challenges to ballot measures often focus on procedure, such as how a legislature passed the resolutions or how the ballot was worded. Readers should treat the headline as a statement of intent, not a filed case.

If Question 2 fails, the existing provisions stay. That would leave the ban in the constitution but unenforceable, as the Department of Elections notes, so long as Obergefell stands. Student reporters at George Mason University's Fourth Estate describe the same practical effect in their Nov. 2 explainer.

Where this fits nationally

Virginia is one of several states where reproductive and family policy are on the ballot this week. Our coverage of Missouri's Amendment 3 reports that the state's abortion vote was tied in a final poll. In Colorado, the state's high court ruled on how another ballot measure would count, as we reported in our Amendment 87 story. The national mood is described in our review of the final national polls, and our report on Justice Department election monitors covers how some states are handling Election Day. A broader look at the final week of voting and disclosure deadlines is also available.

What remains unknown

Several things cannot be known before the polls close. No public poll on Question 2's exact wording was found. The Question 1 polls are old, and their question wording was not reviewed here. The campaign finance totals end on Oct. 24. The effect of the "gender" wording in a future lawsuit is a legal forecast on which lawyers could disagree. And the Family Foundation's planned court action is described only by a headline.

The two sides also use different frames. Supporters of Question 2 describe a safeguard against a possible reversal of federal law. Opponents describe either a change to a traditional definition of marriage, or a constitutional step on gender. Both descriptions are about the same text. Voters can read that text for themselves on the Department of Elections pages linked above.

Results will begin to come in after polls close at 7 p.m. Eastern. Anyone in line at that time must be allowed to vote, Ballotpedia notes.

Differing perspectives

Should Virginia voters approve Question 2, replacing the same-sex marriage ban with a right to marry?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• Approve Question 2

  Who holds it: Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Human Rights Campaign, Equality Virginia, Virginians for Marriage Equality

  Supporters say same-sex couples can marry in Virginia today because of federal rulings, but the 2006 ban remains in the state constitution. Gov. Abigail Spanberger said families "deserve to have the shadow of Virginia's ban on marriage equality finally removed from Virginia's Constitution." Jonathan Lovitz of the Human Rights Campaign said a Yes vote means "replacing Virginia's outdated constitutional ban with an affirmation that our families deserve dignity and equality."

  In their words: Washington Blade, Nov. 1, 2026 (quoting Spanberger and Human Rights Campaign) ↗

• Reject it: keep the marriage provision

  Who holds it: Virginia Catholic Conference, Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington

  The Virginia Catholic Conference opposes repealing the one-man/one-woman marriage provision in the state constitution. It notes that Virginia voters approved the provision in 2006 with the Conference's strong support. It urges a No vote on Question 2 and describes the proposal as an "Amendment Rejecting the Truth about Marriage." Its position is that the constitution should keep marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman.

  In their words: Virginia Catholic Conference ↗

• Reject it: object to the sex and gender wording

  Who holds it: Family Foundation of Virginia, former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears

  The Family Foundation says the amendment's "sex" and "gender" distinction "embeds gender ideology in the constitution," pressuring schools, businesses and government to adopt policies that conflict with biological reality. It argues the wording could affect women's sports, locker rooms and shelters. It also says the amendment has no conscience or religious exemption for clergy or others with moral objections, and that it "reduces marriage to a source of personal happiness."

  In their words: The Family Foundation of Virginia ↗